[governance] In Multistakeholderism, those who would be Lobbyists become Legislators, & nobody else has a vote

Wed Oct 24 09:54:49 EDT 2012

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <
apisan at unam.mx> wrote:

>  Paul,
>
>  the theory in your posts is on track IMO.
>
> Thanks, though it is  more than just theory, it is an explication of
fundamental human rights that clearly state (in somewhat different but
equivalent words) that legitimacy in governance is created only from
representative governance.

 However it does not model the processes being discussed and therefore the
> conclusions are rather a non sequitur.
>

I derive a series of "tests" from this related to minimum standards that
are applicable to all governance systems creating enforceable laws or
regulations, and then I apply these tests to any process being discussed,
so there is no possibility of non sequitur in terms of whether my tests
apply to governance fact patterns or not, only the question of whether the
tests are being applied correctly or not.

Justifications for MS rest on the alleged expertise of stakeholders and the
alleged ignorance of voters.  As to ignorance, this is always the
justification for non-democratic systems. But if you think about it, even
experts and informed voters do not become fully informed until "the last
second" - after a process of becoming informed and listening to other
points of view.  The allegation that someone is presently uninformed about
a question that is not coming up very soon for a binding vote of some sort
is to be expected of nearly every voter and even nearly every expert, at
least until the last moment.  Nobody has all the answers in their own head,
this is why we have meetings and discussions to access the wisdom of the
whole.  But as to democracy, centuries of input by many generations have
perfected the minimum standards for democratic justice and these standards
have been ratified in innumerable treaties and constitutions, starting with
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

>
>  Going back to the ICANN election which in part sparked this discussion,
> the electorate is not well formed. There is a basic, small electorate which
> pre-exists the election, and then there is the chance that each candidate
> will add a pool of followers whose vote is predetermined.
>
>  As mentioned some time ago, this is the equivalent of the situation in
> poor regions of my country and others in which the party with the money or
> the power carries hundreds of voters to each precinct by trucking them in.
> The level of capture is unacceptably undemocratic even if there is no money
> exchanged nor any other benefit traded.
>

The fact or allegation that more democratic means can be and sometimes are
corrupted does not mean that more just and democratic means should not be
sought.

>
>  A vote in this context can only work if the electorate comprises a huge
> fraction of the world's population. I hope the delusion of a single global
> government scares you as much as it does me, or at least appears as much of
> a delusion.
>

MS systems with worldwide impact - which presently exist - are forms of
world government/governance.  I don't agree that this hobgoblin of "world
government" necessarily should scare anyone away from minimum standards of
democratic justice in the form of a ballot.  Many voters are more than
happy to stay away from voting in elections which they do not feel
themselves sufficiently informed on, and are also willing to inform
themselves sufficiently if there is real reason to do so in the form of a
binding vote coming up in the very near future.

>
>  We are left with multistakeholderism and managing its deficit if we
> actually want to get something done, while the larger issues get fixed or
> remain unsolved. Full awareness of the problem helps us curtail the abuses.
> And a lot of principled people are involved, genuinely invested in keeping
> the game fair and open. Checks and balances, as well as mechanisms to
> review, revise, and redress decisions, due process, etc. are being put in
> place and tested
>

I think the main take away, and the main cause of this most recent
discussion in this thread, is not ICANN per se but the suggestion that MS
systems are democracy, perhaps even in its highest form.  This idea is
nonsense.  Rather, MS systems - if they are necessary for the moment
because no electoral systems are presently set up - need to constantly work
towards legitimacy by instituting voting for representatives instead of
holding themselves up as "democratic" when they are not.  Voting for a
representative is a far cry from the technical sophistication that may
often be required in the votes that the representative makes after being
elected.

>
>  This may be a poor remedy for our haughty aspirations. But the
> alternatives are being tested as well and turning out worse.
>

There is no worse alternative than being subject to the regulation of a
body that can not be democratically dissolved or  changed if it is
oppressive or ineffectual because there is no voting....  When you say
something is "worse" you are implying, but not stating, some standard by
which you are judging this.  Though I don't know your standards, most often
one of these standards is the desire for "correct" and "wise" positions.
Here, some humility is in order because all of us always think we have the
"right" answers after we've informed ourselves, and that other answers are
therefore wrong. We may fear changes in policy and regulation and believe
that such would be "wrong", and the prospect of expanding the franchise for
governance purposes raises the specter of "right" decisions being reversed
and becoming "wrong."   But we also know intellectually after reflection
that we are not perfect and are occasionally or frequently wrong without
even knowing it at the time.

Each one of us, once we arrive at what we think is a "good idea", tends
very highly to have a little dictator inside of us that wishes to enforce
this good idea on everyone else because we feel it will be right or in the
best interests of all. But our own egos -- even should they be right - is
insufficient justification for denying those who will be governed the
minimum standard of a vote on the representatives who will make regulation
and policy.

Perhaps if I were somehow appointed as a MS official I would relate more to
the fears that others will make big mistakes if they too are allowed a say
in governance.  But right now I don't have that conflict of interest, and I
can see that if I were to say that it would reflect my own judgment being
impaired by the fact that I hold power and don't wish to let that power go
even in part because I would think that I'm doing the right thing and
acting in the public interest.  But this feeling - the one that gets in the
way of further democracy - is really a delusion of the ego of those who are
invested in MS processes and have disproportionate power and don't wish to
give it away.

Again, once people are recognized as having a vote, and once it matters,
they do get informed, and usually do so at the last second before a binding
election or vote.  The alleged fact that people are ignorant about some
question that it would be idle for them to inform themselves on at the
present moment really says nothing against further democracy.

Anybody holding power in a MS system, IMO, should never be satisfied with
present governance systems by rationalizing that other alternatives are
somehow unacceptable.  Instead, they should be perpetually unsatisfied
until democratic systems of governance can be instituted.

Paul Lehto, J.D.

>
>  The subject line says it most succinctly: In Multistakeholderism, those
> who would be Lobbyists become Legislators, & nobody else has a vote.
>
> In a democracy, it is a scandal that lobbyists have so much influence that
> they even write the drafts of laws.  But in multistakeholder situations
> they take that scandal to a whole new level:  those who would be lobbyists
> in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil society) become the
> legislators themselves, and dispense with all public elections and not only
> write the laws but pass them, enforce them, and in some cases even set up
> courts of arbitration that are usually conditioned on waiving the right to
> go to the court system set up by democracies.
>
> A vote is just a minimum requirement of justice. Without a vote, law is
> just force inflicted by the wealthy and powerful. Multistakeholderism is a
> coup d'etat against democracy by those who would merely be lobbyists in a
> democratic system.  So yes, I think it is misleading at best to use the
> word "democratic" in reference to multistakeholder systems.
>
> Paul R. Lehto, J.D
>

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4965 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121024/83597696/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t